PSP, that's no answer and you know it. The reason you struggled so mightily to find something is there really is no good example of appeasement succeeding as a foreign policy. I think it's simply your personal opinion that appeasement works because of your positive views on human nature. You believe that if you make concessions and offer kindness to people who commit acts of aggression that your kindness will be rewarded. It fits your optimistic nature. That's how you view life, that's how you view the world, and that's why you think appeasement will work by extension for foreign policy.

I won't argue on this basis because debating someone's personal opinion or views on human nature makes little sense. I see the world and humanity differently, and consider your outlook dangerously naive. You likely find me pessimistic because I believe in punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior. That doesn't make you a bad person, but it does get to the heart of why we're different.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

Just because appeasement has failed in the past doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective in unique situations in the future.

At this point, without military action, it seems highly unlikely there will be any way China withdraws from Tibet altogether.

Again, the CTA requests specifically that Tibet remains a member of the republic of China, only recognized as a genuine autonomous region.

With that being the case, appeasement is a perfect solution to this problem, as China hasn't been seen as overly aggressive since their invasion of Tibet 60 years ago.

What is preventing China from sitting down with the Dalai Lama and discussing that possibility?

When world leaders have gone to discuss that with them, what have the objections been?

_________________
Wheelhouse

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result eh?


Oh no?
2008


Happy riot shields of peace and love

I think this monk just needed a ride back to the monestary

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I don't think that rule applies when you're dealing with a different situation.



I was referring to invasions of other territories, not their policies towards Tibet, but that was my mistake. I wasn't clear in my post.

_________________
Wheelhouse

ok, then I'd argue the only reason for that is they were dirt frigging poor until the UK handed over Hong Kong in 1997.
That island alone still accounts for something like 85% of their economy.

They're just to the point in economics and industrialization where they can build a modern military. They were dependent on the Soviets for that for decades.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Then how on earth do they have nuclear weapons, and why are they considered a world super power?

(For the record, this mostly isn't rhetorical... I'm really curious to hear a response.)

I do know that they've had nukes since the 60's, and that leads me to believe they've always had the ability to expand.

_________________
Wheelhouse

They got nuke technology from Russia for the most part.

So if they've always had this techonology, then what was preventing them from expanding after the invasion of Tibet?

_________________
Wheelhouse

Didn't want to piss america off before they had us even more firmly by the balls? If they get us totally (more?) handcuffed by their cheap ass goods then they could go toe to toe with the rest of east asia and we'd do nothing.

_________________
"Call a cop he robbed Delmore blind!!!"
Rick Jeanerette after Marty Biron's diving save back in 2000.

"I'm going to go to the spa and have a hot tub and massage and relax," Miller said. "That's it, and it's back to work tomorrow." Ryan Miller after clinching the North East division.

I don't know about that.

Beating up China in a war would all but rid us of our national debt, as we'd obviously force them to excuse our debt as part of their reparations for starting a war in the first place.

This is all null and void, however, as a nuclear war with china would result in the end of planet earth as we know it.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Yeah, do not want.

_________________
"Call a cop he robbed Delmore blind!!!"
Rick Jeanerette after Marty Biron's diving save back in 2000.

"I'm going to go to the spa and have a hot tub and massage and relax," Miller said. "That's it, and it's back to work tomorrow." Ryan Miller after clinching the North East division.

How is Obama not meeting with this guy in the grand ballroom with full media coverage equivalent to Chamberlin's appeasement of Hitler??????????????????????????/// Maybe someone can explain this to me?

Also, Chamberlin wasn't the only one appeasing Hitler either. Excuse ANYONE for trying to avoid a world war, right?

Let's see here, who's the angry parties involved here:

Obama-happy
Dalai Lama-happy
China-not happy, but not seething either(wonder why?)
Democrats-happy
Fox news-well, happy now they've stirred the pot over some ridiculous picture.

Where exactly do you see fox news involved in this discussion at all?
I swear some people have Fox News derangement syndrome.

and the picture isn't the point.

and the picture was from the AP.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Still eager to have someone explain this to me.

_________________
Wheelhouse

The Soviet Union.

In what direction were they supposed to expand?

Commies in China
Commies in N. Korea trying to expand to S. Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia etc.
Commies to the East in the Soviet Union.

I suppose the only territory they're really gunning for is Taiwan but that would start a world war.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Mostly liberals. lol

I know fox wasn't involved here, but I'm sure Hannity or Bill. O. would be glad to use the illustration to make more people hate Obama.

Anyway, my main point was that comparing this to allowing the spread of Nazism is pretty out there. I know most will say this is very un-liberal too, but Obama is actually hawkish on Afghanistan. I don't think he's super soft at all.

So if they have no possible area to expand, then why would diplomacy and appeasement be a poor choice in trying to convince them to recognize Tibet as its own state within the republic of China?

_________________
Wheelhouse

Because it hasn't worked for 50 years.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Has anyone actually approached China in the past and asked them to sit down with the Dalai Lama?

Have they been urged by the UN, and not passively suggested?

_________________
Wheelhouse

China has rebuffed pretty much every outside attempt to have them sit down with Tibetan government in exile. As far as China is concerned, with their North Korea-esque revisionist history, Tibet was a part of China all the way back to the 1200s.

That's not factually correct, but with China, facts aren't important.